I appreciate your approval of rhetorical technique.
In response, I would like to criticize yours. Person P did not join a "Going out to bar" group. They entered into an at-will employment agreement with a business entity. Person P should be neither obliged to join said "Going out to bar" group, nor should they expect that group to change their activity that everyone in the group enjoys (to a less enjoyable activity) simply to accommodate a new co-worker.
In your example, if my co-workers were religious and were talking about an event they were attending outside of work, there is no issue. I don't understand why you think your co-workers have some contractual duty to be inclusive in their personal lives. They might invite me because they personally enjoy working with me and want to extend our working relationship to a more casual, friendship environment, but I am under no contractual or employment obligation to go, therefore there is no duty by the company (or its employees, which are just extensions of the company in a work environment) to specifically be all inclusive.
The point is people are drawn to an activity for a certain reason. No group is going to take nicely to someone coming in and getting angry when they (where they could be 5-6 people) don't change their outside of work behavior to accommodate a single person.
You seem to be implying that there is some necessary reason to try to include co-workers in outside of work, non-work related, personal activities. That is why it appears that you are describing some contractual duty requiring co-workers to engage in personal social events.
Do you have a better word for this required need (than duty) that you say exists?
(By the way, the definition of duty: something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation. That is what I feel you are describing when you say people are required by necessity to include their co-workers. Maybe you should work on your communication skills instead of refusing to acknowledge your claim (a claim that implied employers have a right to police the personal, social events of their employees) was baseless and had no merit at all.)
This is incredible. I come back after cooling down to see whether or not you responded and I see that you've managed to add yet another layer of straw man. This time creating a employer-employee relationship out of thin air when the subject of discussion was about coworkers. I didn't even SAY anything last time!
I'll certainly concede I could have communicated better; that's basically always true anyways because NOT PERFECT. But the idea that I could have gotten through to you, who can't seem to reply without figuring out a way to twist what I've said, is ridiculous.
In response, I would like to criticize yours. Person P did not join a "Going out to bar" group. They entered into an at-will employment agreement with a business entity. Person P should be neither obliged to join said "Going out to bar" group, nor should they expect that group to change their activity that everyone in the group enjoys (to a less enjoyable activity) simply to accommodate a new co-worker.
In your example, if my co-workers were religious and were talking about an event they were attending outside of work, there is no issue. I don't understand why you think your co-workers have some contractual duty to be inclusive in their personal lives. They might invite me because they personally enjoy working with me and want to extend our working relationship to a more casual, friendship environment, but I am under no contractual or employment obligation to go, therefore there is no duty by the company (or its employees, which are just extensions of the company in a work environment) to specifically be all inclusive.
The point is people are drawn to an activity for a certain reason. No group is going to take nicely to someone coming in and getting angry when they (where they could be 5-6 people) don't change their outside of work behavior to accommodate a single person.